Mark Caleb Smith, Ph.D.

The final full week before the November 3 midterm elections is bringing a surge of campaign appearances, advertising and voter outreach as Republicans and Democrats compete for control of Congress. President Donald Trump and prominent Democratic leaders are campaigning across key states, while competitive races in places such as Mississippi illustrate how the political battleground has expanded. Republicans are defending their congressional majorities as Democrats seek to turn dissatisfaction with the administration into electoral gains. The stakes extend beyond which party wins the most seats. Congressional control helps determine which legislation advances, how federal spending priorities take shape and how closely lawmakers investigate executive branch decisions. Continued Republican control could help the president advance his agenda, while Democratic gains could create additional obstacles and strengthen congressional oversight. Voters are also choosing governors and other state officials whose decisions directly affect schools, public services and local economies. For campaigns, the closing days present a challenge: persuading undecided voters while ensuring existing supporters cast their ballots. For voters, the election offers an opportunity to evaluate both candidates’ promises and their ability to govern. The results will help shape the direction of national policy during the remaining two years of the president’s term. 

Should the Supreme Court remain at nine justices, or would a larger bench strengthen the nation’s highest court? That question is drawing renewed attention after a Republican-backed constitutional amendment to permanently limit the court to nine seats failed in the House in September. Democratic proposals include expanding the court to 13 justices, while supporters and opponents disagree over whether changing its size would improve its credibility or deepen political divisions. Although nine justices may seem like a constitutional requirement, Congress determines the court’s size. Its membership changed several times before settling at nine in 1869. Legislation introduced by Rep. Al Green would increase that number to 13, reopening a debate over how much influence elected officials should have over the structure of the judiciary. Supporters see expansion as a way to restore balance and bring additional perspectives to the bench. Critics worry that adding seats to secure favorable rulings could encourage future majorities to pursue similar changes. The broader issue is how to preserve public confidence in an institution designed to exercise independent judgment. The Constitution’s protections for federal judges, including service during good behavior and protection against salary reductions, are intended to shield them from partisan pressure. Changing the court’s membership would create new opportunities for presidential appointments, with consequences that could extend well beyond a single administration. As the debate continues, Americans face a consequential question: What reforms would strengthen accountability while preserving the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret the law independently?

When will Congress stop kicking the budget proverbial can down the road with a continuing resolution and begin addressing the issue of leading with a balanced budget? Having a balanced budget, and spending within our means should be expected of our legislators--but for decades, this has not been the case. Lawmakers from both political parties are guitly of not addressing the issue that has created several 11th-hour deals regarding the budget. While this strategy helps keep some legislators in power, it's providing no benefit to the American people. Congress has now opted to not work on this issue until December--if it even does it then. However, the deadline buys our political leaders time to get past the midterm elections, campaign for each other, and hope the American public doesn't notice. And, in doing so, we'll experience another government shutdown in December.